Prop. 14′s state constitutional amendment wasn’t a pre-existing right, but created. Trouble was, it clashed with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the one about no state denying due process or equal protection of the law. There’s also that bit in the 9th about not construing the Constitution to deny or disparage other rights. FYI.

And as a matter of commercial rights, Justice Douglas’ concurrence in Mulkey noted that segregation tended to stifle credit in “mixed” neighborhoods. There was also this back-and-forth:

“[E]ach time we citizens of this country lose any of the rights that go with the ownership of property, we are moving that much closer to a centralized government in which ultimately the right to own property would be denied.”

That apparently is a common view. It overlooks several things. First, the right to own or lease property is already denied to many solely because of the pigment of their skin; they are, indeed, under the control of a few who determine where and how the colored people shall live and what the nature of our cities will be. Second, the agencies that are zoning the cities along racial lines are state licensees.

Zoning is a state and municipal function. … When the State leaves that function to private agencies or institutions which are licensees and which practice racial discrimination and zone our cities into white and black belts or white and black ghettoes, it suffers a governmental function to be performed under private auspices in a way the State itself may not act.

“Why do you refer to it as the “so-called ‘civil rights’ movement”?”

The only reason I can think of is that he doesn’t support the idea of equality for black people.

That civil right was taken away from us by the courts and absurd overreaching of the so-called ‘civil rights’ movement.

Why do you refer to it as the “so-called ‘civil rights’ movement”?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/30/usa.schoolsworldwide

Of course, the law is unenforceable (made so by Brown v. BOE) — but the language remains on the books to this day (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/04/alabama_senate_votes_to_remove.html).

BTW, that civil right wasn’t't technically taken away. What was taken away was the right do do it publicly and expect the gummint to support you.

You are absolutely right — Californian voters voted for the civil right of owners to sell to, lease to, rent to, who they wanted. That civil right was taken away from us by the courts and absurd overreaching of the so-called ‘civil rights’ movement.

he wouldn’t see it that way, of course, but some one explain how certain states really would not consider a got like this to be a vote on slavery!

i think Abraham Lincoln, if he were alive today, would NOT be a Republican…

Once, while driving through rural Alabama late one night on my way to Pensacola from Atlanta my friend and I stopped at a Waffle House. Before we could even get out of the parking lot we were yelled at, threatened, and called “fags.” Apparently, whereeverthehell we were in bubba-fuck Alabama the locals had decided that this particular Waffle House was the Black Waffle House and the one on the next exit up was the White Waffle House. Needless to say, we left in a hurry and elected to just get snacks at the next 24 hour gas station we found.

Also, I worked at a couple of mom & pop places in Atlanta where the rest of the wait-staff imposed a “don’t give me the black table” policy. While there was no policy of discrimination the staff created a defacto one due to the untrue perception that black people tip less. I thought they were fools, however, and took every “dark” table I could. My tips never suffered & I ended up with a few regulars to-boot.

Anyway; yeah, there is still racial discrimination in America.

Now he’s “evolving” on marriage, he says. He might ponder what evolved since 1965.